India’s Anti-corruption Ombudsman–Lokpal: An Analysis

Abstract

The issue of corruption in public life has been seen across countries for a long time. India is also not immune from the problem of corruption. It is one of the most important challenges in the way to achieve effective governance. Thus, the need for an institution of the Ombudsman, especially at the national level to fight against corruption, has been debated and demanded. However, it is only in the second decade of the 21st century that the legislation for establishing an Ombudsman in the form of Lokpal came into effect. Although Lokpal in India is still in the initial stage of its existence, it is important to analyse its functioning to know its effectiveness and prospects. Thus, this article tries to analyse the functioning of Lokpal of India from its inception till the present.

Introduction

Corruption in any form is not good for any society as it undermines the governance of the society, and more importantly, it affects the quality of life of the people, particularly the poor. Apart from that, it has been a big hurdle in achieving good governance. Corruption in public life can be seen across countries irrespective of the political systems. Corruption in public life is not new; it has been in existence for quite a long time. In order to fight against corruption, several countries have established the institution of an Ombudsman starting with Sweden in 1809. By now, it has become popular and been adopted by many countries. In India also, corruption has been seen as a big challenge in the way to effective governance. For instance, as per the latest available data, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alone registered 632 corruption cases in the year 2017; 460 cases in 2018; 396 cases in 2019 and 425 cases in 2020 (Lok Sabha, 2021). Since India’s independence, there have been some important commissions/committees like the first Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) in 1966, followed by the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution in 2002, the second ARC in 2005 and so on. All of them emphasised the need to establish an institution of an Ombudsman in the form of Lokpal and Lokayuktas, which can deal with corruption cases more effectively and stand solidly as a weapon to fight against rampant corruption in public offices at the Union level and in the States. There already exists a legal and institutional mechanism in the form of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (which was lastly amended in 2018) for the former and the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) for the latter, respectively.

Evolution of Lokpal in India

For the first time, a bill was introduced in the Indian Parliament during the Fourth Lok Sabha in 1968 called Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill; it was passed by Lok Sabha in 1969, but it could not get through the Rajya Sabha. Since then several times, bills have been introduced (in 1971, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2005, and twice in 2011) to establish the Lokpal institution, but these efforts have not been successful (Jha, 2018, p. 502). However, it was only in the second decade of the 21st century that the law (Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013) for establishing an Ombudsman institution was passed by the Parliament of India and came into force on 16 January 2014. Under the above Act, only the institution of Lokpal was established to deal with the allegations of corruption against public functionaries like the present and former Prime Ministers, Union Ministers, Members of Parliament of both Houses, Employees of the union government (Group A–D) and so on. The term ‘Lokpal’ means ‘Protector of People’ and it is the same as that of the concept of Ombudsman, which means officials specifically appointed to look into the complaints of the people against the administration and redress their grievances (Lokpal, 2020, p. 1). The main credit for establishing a Lokpal should go to a nationwide protest from the common people in 2011 under the movement called ‘India against Corruption’ which was led by Anna Hazare (a social activist). This put pressure on the then-government led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to enact a legislation. So, the Lokpal legislation in India is one of the few legislations in the 21st century which has been demanded and debated both outside (by the people including the civil society) and inside the parliament by the legislators. Also, India is a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption 2003 which was ratified in 2011, and mandates the parties to follow some obligations with regard to making domestic laws to criminalise corrupt practices, and also to establish some mechanism for its enforcement.

Understanding the Functioning of Lokpal of India

The functioning of Lokpal of India has been analysed here by going through the annual reports of Lokpal of India, that is, 2019–2020 and 2020–2021 (the latest available) and some data available on the website of Lokpal of India. As mentioned before, the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013 came into effect in 2014 during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government. However, it took more than five years to appoint India’s first anti-corruption watchdog under the National Democratic Alliance II government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on 23 March 2019 (Gupta, 2022).

Complaints Against Public Servants

During the first year of Lokpal of India’s existence, that is, in 2019–2020, there were a total of 1,427 complaints received. So, out of 1,427 complaints, 613 were filed against ‘State Government Officials and Officials of Public Sector Undertakings, etc. at the State governments’ level’ which is (42.95%) of the total complaints. It was followed by 245 (17.1%) complaints against ‘Central Government officials’; 220 (15.41%) complaints were not against any public servants, but rather in the nature of ‘Requests, Comments or Suggestions’; 200 (14.01%) complaints against the ‘Officials of Public Sector Undertakings, Statutory Bodies at Central Government level’; 135 (9.46%) complaints against the ‘Private Persons and Functionaries of other Organisations’; six (0.42%) complaints against ‘Ministers of State Government and Members of State Legislative Assemblies’; four (0.28%) complaints against ‘Members of Parliament and Central Ministers’ and the remaining four (0.28%) complaints were in the category of ‘Others’ (it means those complaints which are not covered in the above-mentioned categories) (Lokpal, 2020, p. 30).

In the year 2020–2021, a total of 2,355 complaints were filed with the Lokpal of India, out of which 2,224 complaints were not in the prescribed form as laid down by the Lokpal (Complaints) Rules 2020. So the complainants were asked to file again in the prescribed form (Lokpal, 2021, p. 21). Therefore, only 131 complaints were received in the prescribed form; however, twenty-one complaints with some shortcomings were also found, and complainants were requested to rectify them. But, there was no reply from the complainants’ side; hence, no action could be taken on the aforementioned twenty-one complaints. Thus, we are left with 110 complaints that were received by the Lokpal of India during the year 2020–2021. Out of a total of 110 complaints, fifty-seven complaints were filed against ‘Group A or Group B officials of Central Government’ (e.g., against officials in the Ministry of Finance, it was twelve complaints, followed by Ministry of Home Affairs eleven complaints, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways seven complaints, and against Chief Secretary of Andaman and Nicobar administration). Thus, complaints against the above officials constitute (51.81%) of the total complaints. Next come forty-four (40%) complaints against ‘Chairperson, Member, Officer or Employee in any Body, Board, Corporation, etc. under the Central Government’ (e.g., against officials in Public Sector Banks there were eleven complaints, followed by Central Universities’ eight complaints, from Deendayal Port Trust five complaints, etc.) (Lokpal, 2021, p. 35). Like in the previous year, five complaints (4.54%) were under the category of ‘Others’. Lastly, there were four (3.63%) complaints against the ‘Members of Parliament’.

By July 2021, a total of thirty complaints were filed, out of which eighteen complaints were against ‘Group A or Group B Officials of the Central Government’. The remaining twelve complaints were against ‘Chairperson, Member, Officer or Employee in any Body, Board, Corporation, etc. under the Central Government’. Overall, it can be noticed that there were several complaints filed that were frivolous or outside the jurisdictions of the Lokpal of India. For instance, in 2019–2020, out of a total of 1,427 complaints, 613 complaints received by Lokpal of India related to ‘State Government Officials and Officials of Public Sector Undertakings, Statutory Bodies, etc. at the State Government level’, which is (42.95%) of the total complaints. Similarly, complaints in the nature of ‘Requests, Comments or Suggestions’ are 220 (15.41%). Also, it can be observed that during the period 2019–2020 to 2021–2022 (till July 2021), 320 complaints out of a total of 1,567 complaints were filed against ‘Group A or Group B Officials of Central Government’ which was (20.42%) of the total complaints. Similarly, there were 256 complaints (16.33%) against ‘Chairperson, Member, Officer or Employee in any Body, Board, Corporation, etc. under the Central Government’ (Lokpal, 2020, p. 30; Lokpal, 2021, p. 24).

Nature of Allegations of Complaints

The Lokpal of India has broadly classified the nature of allegations of the complaints received by it. In 2019–2020, the complaints were classified under ten categories out of a total of 1,427 complaints, the highest number of complaints related to ‘Misconduct or Wrong action by Officials’ which is 337 and constitutes (23.61%) of the total complaints. It was followed by 283 (19.83%) complaints related to ‘Service Matters’; 263 (18.43%) ‘Frauds and Cheating’; 220 (15.41%) ‘Complaints were of the nature of Requests, Comments or Suggestions’ (so this category is not exactly a complaint); 124 (8.68%) ‘Disputes relating to Property’; 123 (8.61%) ‘Inaction by the Officials’; twenty-four (1.68%) ‘Taking undue advantage by Officials’; six (0.42%) ‘Extending undue benefits to other Persons’; three (0.21%) ‘Disproportionate Assets’; and apart from the aforementioned complaints, there are forty-four (3.08%) complaints related to the category of ‘Others’ (it means those complaints which are not covered in the above categories). The data for 2019–2020 show that the largest complaints are in the nature of ‘Misconduct or Wrong action by Officials’, even the complaint related to ‘Inaction by the Officials’ could be added to the above category and both constituted together (32.23%) of the total nature of allegations of complaints. During 2020–2021, the Lokpal of India classified the nature of allegations of the complaints into eight categories. However, it is not possible to discuss them here, the reason being that it has carried forward the 123 complaints received during 2019–2020 to the next year (i.e. 2020–2021), and these have been clubbed together with the nature of allegations of the complaints for the year 2020–2021.

Disposal of Complaints

With regard to the disposal of complaints during the year 2019–2020, out of 1,427 complaints received, 1,219 complaints were outside the jurisdiction of the Lokpal of India, and therefore closed. In eighty-nine complaints, the complainants were requested to file their complaints in a prescribed form as notified by the Central government. As thirty seven complaints were handled by other authorities, these cases were considered as closed. Similarly, in thirty-four complaints, the action from the Lokpal of India was not necessary, thus it directed the concerned authorities to take the required action. In forty-three complaints, an inquiry report or a status report was pending with the CVC and the concerned ministry/department. In the case of CVC, twenty-five complaint cases where status reports were sought, while four complaint cases were pending for preliminary inquiry; in respect to the Department of Higher Education, three complaint cases where status reports were sought, and one complaint case was pending for preliminary inquiry; both Delhi Police and Ministry of Culture were having two complaint cases each, where status report was sought; the Ministry of Water Resource, Director General of Income Tax, Department of School Education and Literacy, Department of Post, Ministry of Shipping all having one complaint case each, where status report was sought; while in case of Railway Board, one complaint case was pending for preliminary inquiry (Lokpal, 2020, pp. 34, 36).

During 2020–2021, a total of 233 complaints were dealt with by the Lokpal of India which (includes 123 complaints received during 2019–2020 and 110 complaints received in 2020–2021). Out of 123 complaints, 113 complaints were disposed of and the remaining ten complaints were pending and carried forward to the next year, that is, 2021–2022. Similarly, out of 110 complaints, eighty-eight complaints were disposed of and sixteen complaints were pending with the various agencies for a preliminary inquiry. Also, six complaints were with the Lokpal of India for consideration of complaint/preliminary inquiry report. Thus, the remaining twenty-two complaints out of 110 complaints were carried forward to the next year, that is, 2021–2022 (Lokpal, 2021, p. 22).

For the year 2021–2022, as on July 2021, a total of thirty complaints were received, out of which eleven complaints were closed after the preliminary examination, whereas in seven complaint cases, a preliminary inquiry report was pending (with CVC two complaint cases, CBI three complaint cases, etc.). In one complaint case, a status report was sought from CVC, and in another case, comments were sought from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Lastly, in three complaint cases, additional information was sought from the complainants (Lokpal, 2022, pp. 1–3).

Overall Analysis of Functioning of Lokpal of India

How serious the Government of India is regarding the effective implementation of the Lokpal Act can be seen from the fact that it took a year (on 2 March 2020) to notify the rules regarding the form and manner of filing of complaints by the complainants, also handling of complaints by the Lokpal of India from the date of its formation (Lokpal, 2021, p. 9). However, the Lokpal of India accepted in whatever form the complaints made by the people, even before the rules were notified by the central government. About complaints against Central government servants, the Lokpal of India referred these complaints to the CVC. Regarding the complaints against Group A and B officials of the central government, the CVC would send a report to the Lokpal of India, whereas the CVC will act against Group C and D employees as per the CVC Act. This is the reason why many complaints were pending with the CVC, as there were more complaints against Central government servants. Till now (as of 22 July 2022), the Lokpal of India since its inception has not given sanction for the prosecution of any public servants who are involved in corruption cases. Also, the lack of awareness among the common people about the public servants and the subject matter of complaints covered under the mandate of Lokpal of India, which resulted in a lot of complaints filed by the people that were not under the jurisdiction of Lokpal of India, for example, majority of the complaints related to pensions, service matters and grievance redressals.

Since the year 2020, the two judicial members’ post have been vacant, the one post vacant since January 2020 when Justice Dilip Babasaheb Bhosale gave his resignation, and the second post vacant due to the death of Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi in May 2020, and still (as of 22 July 2022) both posts had not been filled. Even, there is no regular chairperson of Lokpal since 27 May 2022, when the first chairperson Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose’s term ended; rather, Justice Pradip Kumar Mohanty, one of the judicial members of the Lokpal of India, was made acting chairperson (as of 22 July 2022) (Gupta, 2022). Similarly, there exist vacant positions at the Lokpal Secretariat, which highlight the lack of manpower, especially in the key positions. According to the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, three statutory posts: (a) Secretary, (b) Director of Inquiry (Inquiry Wing) and (c) Director of Prosecution (Prosecution Wing) need to be appointed. However, till now (as on January 2022), the two important posts of Director of Inquiry (to oversee the preliminary inquiry) and Director of Prosecution (to take steps for the prosecution of the public servants) had not been filled. As per Section 10 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, the appointment of the above-mentioned officers had to be done by the chairperson of the Lokpal of India, from the panel of names sent by the Central government (Lokpal, 2021, p. 18). According to Lokpal of India, the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, had been requested to send the panel of names for an appointment, but still it was not done. There has also been a shortage of staff, which is affecting the workload of the Lokpal institution. Although the Government of India sanctioned 124 posts in addition to statutory posts, there existed many vacant positions. During 2019–2020, only eighty-four positions were filled, whereas in 2020–2021, it was reduced to sixty-seven positions.

Conclusion

The institution of an Ombudsman in the form of Lokpal of India has been established after a long period, in a democratic country like India. It was seen as a weapon in the fight against corruption, especially at the national level, while in the first decade of the 21st century, a number of corruption cases were in limelight at the national level like the 2G Scam, Coal Scam, Commonwealth Games Scam and so on. However, the analysis of the functioning of Lokpal of India since its inception shows that still it has to go a long way in fighting against corruption. The anti-corruption watchdog needs to be strengthened with sufficient manpower. Also, the investigation agencies in the form of CVC and CBI, along with other stakeholders like the ministry/department need to fulfil their responsibilities within the prescribed time limit. More importantly, in India, there is still a lack of awareness about the role, responsibilities, and jurisdiction of Lokpal of India which needs to be overcome at the earliest. According to the Corruption Perception Index Report published by Transparency International, based on the perception of experts and business people about the level of public sector corruption, it shows that in 2019, India ranks 80 out of 180 countries, slipped two positions from the seventy-eighth rank in 2018; while it further slipped six places to the eighty-sixth rank in 2020; and in 2021, it improved one position to the eighty-fifth rank. With regard to the Corruption Perception Index Score, out of 100, in 2019, the score for India was forty-one which was reduced to forty in 2020 and remained the same in 2021 (PTI, 2022). There is no doubt that the present Government of India, under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, professed to be committed to ‘Zero Tolerance against Corruption’ in governance, but as said before, a lot more needs to be done to achieve a corruption-free society in India.